Logo PTI Logo FedCSIS

Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 35

Sensitivity analysis of the criteria weights used in selected MCDA methods in the multi-criteria assessment of banking services in Poland in 2022

,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2023F3745

Citation: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki, D. Ślęzak (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 35, pages 1217–1222 ()

Full text

Abstract. The main purpose of this article is to compare the sensitivity of the weights of individual criteria in the assessment of the most popular banks' websites and the impact of the MCDA methods applied on the results of these assessments. The analysis was carried out for three selected, the most popular and different assessment methods: TOPSIS, VIKOR and PROMETHEE II. The evaluation of the websites was made on a sample of 350 bank customers, whose opinions were obtained using the CAWI method using a survey form. The survey made it possible to distinguish the 16 most popular banking services in this group, and only these banks were then evaluated. The survey questionnaire was obtained after verification of the pilot version created on the basis of previous research. The websites most known to the respondents were tested using three MDCA methods: TOPSIS, VIKOR, PROMETHEE II. The sensitivity of the results in each of the banks to the development of weights for 18 attributes (service evaluation criteria) was examined. The obtained results indicate the possibility of interchangeable use of the distinguished assessment methods, which may be helpful for business practitioners when analyzing and designing banking services.

References

  1. W. Chmielarz and M. Zborowski, ’Comparative Analysis of Electronic Banking Websites in Poland in 2014 and 2015’, in Information Technology for Management, E. Ziemba, Ed., in Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 147–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30528-8_9.
  2. C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, ’Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making’, in Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey, C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1981, pp. 58–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3.
  3. M. Cinelli, M. Kadziński, M. Gonzalez, and R. Słowiński, ‘How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy’, Omega, vol. 96, pp. 240–261, Oct. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261.
  4. W. Chmielarz and M. Zborowski, ‘Conversion Method in Comparative Analysis of e-Banking Services in Poland’, in Perspectives in Business Informatics Research, A. Kobyliński and A. Sobczak, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2013, pp. 227–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40823-6_18.
  5. A. Piegat and W. Sałabun, Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods for Assessing the Severity of Chronic Liver Disease, vol. 9119. 2015, p. 238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19324-3-21.
  6. W. Sałabun and A. Piegat, ‘Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome’, Artif Intell Rev, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 557–571, Dec. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9511-9.
  7. W. Sałabun, ‘The Characteristic Objects Method: A New Distance-based Approach to Multicriteria Decision-making Problems’, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 22, no. 1–2, pp. 37–50, 2015, doi: 10.1002/mcda.1525.
  8. A. Karczmarczyk, J. Wątróbski, and J. Jankowski, ‘Comparative Study of Different MCDA-Based Approaches in Sustainable Supplier Selection Problem’, in Information Technology for Management: Emerging Research and Applications, E. Ziemba, Ed., in Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 176–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15154-6_10.
  9. M. Kumar and C. Samuel, ‘Selection of Best Renewable Energy Source by Using VIKOR Method’, Technol Econ Smart Grids Sustain Energy, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 8, Apr. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40866-017-0024-7.
  10. J.-M. Martel and B. Matarazzo, ‘Other Outranking Approaches’, in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrogott, Eds., in International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. New York, NY: Springer, 2005, pp. 197–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_6.
  11. J. Papathanasiou and N. Ploskas, ‘VIKOR’, in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid: Methods, Examples and Python Implementations, J. Papathanasiou and N. Ploskas, Eds., in Springer Optimization and Its Applications. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 31–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91648-4_2.
  12. J. Jankowski, W. Sałabun, and J. Wątróbski, ‘Identification of a Multi-criteria Assessment Model of Relation Between Editorial and Commercial Content in Web Systems’, 2017, pp. 295–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43982-2_26.
  13. ‘Identification of a Multi-criteria Model of Location Assessment for Renewable Energy Sources | SpringerLink’. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-39378-0_28 (accessed May 26, 2023).
  14. B. Kizielewicz, J. Wątróbski, and W. Sałabun, ‘Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process-Wind Farm Location Case Study’, Energies, vol. 13, p. 6548, Dec. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13246548.
  15. N. Tsotsolas and S. Alexopoulos, ‘MCDA Approaches for Efficient Strategic Decision Making’, 2018, pp. 17–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90599-0_2.
  16. J. Wątróbski, J. Jankowski, P. Ziemba, A. Karczmarczyk, and M. Zioło, ‘Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection’, Omega, vol. 86, pp. 107–124, Jul. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004.
  17. W. Chmielarz and M. Zborowski, ‘Analysis of e-Banking Websites’ Quality with the Application of the TOPSIS Method – A Practical Study’, Procedia Computer Science, vol. 126, pp. 1964–1976, Jan. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.256.
  18. A. Papapostolou, F. D. Mexis, E. Sarmas, C. Karakosta, and J. Psarras, ‘Web-based Application for Screening Energy Efficiency Investments: A MCDA Approach’, in 2020 11th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA, Jul. 2020, pp. 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IISA50023.2020.9284403.
  19. W. Chmielarz and M. Zborowski, ‘Towards Sustainability in E-Banking Website Assessment Methods’, Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 17, Art. no. 17, Jan. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12177000.
  20. W. Chmielarz and M. Zborowski, ‘Towards VES Function for Creating a Sustainable Method for Evaluating e-Banking Websites Quality’, Procedia Computer Science, vol. 192, pp. 5139–5155, Jan. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.292.
  21. H. Voogd, ‘Multicriteria Evaluation with Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Data’, Environment and Planning B, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 221–236, 1982.
  22. P. Fortemps, S. Greco, and R. Słowiński, ‘Multicriteria Choice and Ranking Using Decision Rules Induced from Rough Approximation of Graded Preference Relations’, in Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing, S. Tsumoto, R. Słowiński, J. Komorowski, and J. W. Grzymała-Busse, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2004, pp. 510–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25929-9_62.
  23. W. Sałabun, J. Wątróbski, and A. Shekhovtsov, ‘Are MCDA methods benchmarkable? A comparative study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II methods’, Symmetry, vol. 12, pp. 1–55, Sep. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sym12091549.
  24. A. Shekhovtsov, J. Więckowski, B. Kizielewicz, and W. Sałabun, ‘Effect of Criteria Range on the Similarity of Results in the COMET Method’, Sep. 2021, pp. 453–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2021F44.
  25. D. Liang, Y. Zhang, Z. Xu, and A. Jamaldeen, ‘Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR approaches based on TODIM for evaluating internet banking website quality of Ghanaian banking industry’, Applied Soft Computing, vol. 78, pp. 583–594, May 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.03.006.
  26. P. Ziemba, ‘Towards Strong Sustainability Management—A Generalized PROSA Method’, Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Jan. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11061555.
  27. J.-P. Brans and B. Mareschal, ‘Promethee Methods’, in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrogott, Eds., in International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. New York, NY: Springer, 2005, pp. 163–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5.
  28. C. Beaudrie, C. Corbett J, T. A. Lewandowski, T. Malloy, and X. Zhou, ‘Evaluating the Application of Decision Analysis Methods in Simulated Alternatives Assessment Case Studies: Potential Benefits and Challenges of Using MCDA’, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 27–41, Feb. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4316.
  29. A. Shekhovtsov, J. Kołodziejczyk, and W. Sałabun, ‘Fuzzy Model Identification Using Monolithic and Structured Approaches in Decision Problems with Partially Incomplete Data’, Symmetry, vol. 12, no. 9, Art. no. 9, Sep. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sym12091541.
  30. A. Shekhovtsov, V. Kozlov, V. Nosov, and W. Sałabun, ‘Efficiency of Methods for Determining the Relevance of Criteria in Sustainable Transport Problems: A Comparative Case Study’, Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 19, Art. no. 19, Jan. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12197915.
  31. R. Likert, A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: New York University, 1932.
  32. ‘Respondenci do ankiet online’. https://ankieteo.pl/program-do-ankiet/respondenci (accessed May 10, 2023).